W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-style@w3.org > December 2013

RE: [css-variables] cyclic dependencies involving fallback

From: François REMY <francois.remy.dev@outlook.com>
Date: Tue, 17 Dec 2013 01:02:47 +0100
Message-ID: <DUB405-EAS3670A71D81E8E18548BF966A5DB0@phx.gbl>
To: "'Cameron McCormack'" <cam@mcc.id.au>, "'Tab Atkins Jr.'" <jackalmage@gmail.com>
CC: "'www-style list'" <www-style@w3.org>
± I think you're right that it does need more work if you ignore the unused
± fallback variable references when determining whether a variable is invalid.
± Also I'm not sure it's that useful; deliberately including cycles and then relying
± on fallback for them to resolve doesn't seem like a pattern that authors will
± need.  I think making them all invalid is simpler and is powerful enough.
± 
± (fremy may disagree about whether it's useful to allow it, though:
± https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=950497#c3.)

Of course I do (I already did back then) but the issues on this group are ruled out by the majority principle ;-)

Still, I don't understand this desire to detect loops early, the backtracking algorithm I propose for value resolution simply makes this unnecessary and has much better fallback semantics. But when I first proposed it, Tab had the same reaction as you: "that looks nice, so why not, but is it really worth the implementation cost?" and decided it wasn't, after all.

I'm pretty sure it does, though, because it has a negligible footprint, but that's just my personal opinion =)
Received on Tuesday, 17 December 2013 00:06:08 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 2 May 2016 14:39:17 UTC